If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

David Harrison is another one of those guys that tried to keep it real and lost a lot of money in the process, he had the potential to at least be the 3rd big on a team for a lot of years but he destroyed all that.

This year we will see a drastic emphasis on defense. Teams will adopt (many will fail) the Pacer's closeout and protect the paint defense (leaving the midrange open). That is why players like Durant and Parker are so special, and kill us routinely.

Shot blockers will come at a premium and midrange shooters will be sought after. I think Paul George can be one of these players. And same with Lance. I don't want to see Lance working on the 3. I want to see his midrange jumper more dependable.

I hate efficiency shot charts. They don't take into account which shots are more likely to get offensively rebounded, or which shots are more likely to draw fouls.

If there were a rule in the nba that only one shot can be attempted per possession and FTs were banned, these charts would make more sense.

The closer to the rim you are, the more valuable your attempts get. I cannot stand the logic that shooting %40 from the arc is the same as shooting %60 inside. There is no way anyone with any authority in the nba buys that, either. Inside shots draw fouls. Inside shots are more likely to get offensively rebounded. Inside shots are harder to turn into transition baskets. If one team shoots nothing but threes and makes %40, and the other shoots nothing but twos and makes 60%, the latter team wins easily. I'd even give odds on that same team shooting 50% from inside the arc. They're going to make up that difference in extra FGAs and FTs.

Last edited by Kstat; 10-15-2013 at 10:46 AM.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Ok, it took me several days, but I finally got the reference. The 10th Commandment = Thou shalt not covet (Miami's crown). Well done, Kstat.

On shooting efficiency. I think there's no question in the analyst community that inside shots are the most efficient, even before FTs are considered. On the flip side, I don't think anyone's arguing that long 2's give you anything more than 3's. So I guess the gray area is the in-between midrange spots, where perhaps you can get better FTA and OREB opportunities. 3's OTOH get the advantage of better spacing. I think someone did a study that showed that a player would have to be Dirk or KD level efficient from midrange in order to beat out the corner 3 in efficiency.

I hate efficiency shot charts. They don't take into account which shots are more likely to get offensively rebounded, or which shots are more likely to draw fouls.

If there were a rule in the nba that only one shot can be attempted per possession and FTs were banned, these charts would make more sense.

The closer to the rim you are, the more valuable your attempts get. I cannot stand the logic that shooting %40 from the arc is the same as shooting %60 inside. There is no way anyone with any authority in the nba buys that, either. Inside shots draw fouls. Inside shots are more likely to get offensively rebounded. Inside shots are harder to turn into transition baskets. If one team shoots nothing but threes and makes %40, and the other shoots nothing but twos and makes 60%, the latter team wins easily. I'd even give odds on that same team shooting 50% from inside the arc. They're going to make up that difference in extra FGAs and FTs.

I agree with everything you have said. But I wouldn't look exclusively at any chart of stat. What this chart shows is the complete neglect for the midrange game. And we know that the league scores less than in the 80s and 90s. Or do we?

Can we honestly say the defenses are better now than then? Maybe team defense. But with the hand checking rule and the rough play back in check we should see an increase of points scored. Maybe refs aren't calling enough fouls? Or teams shooting less inside so they aren't getting to the line? The league average of team FTA in 1987 was 29.1. This year it was 22.2.

The league team total rebound averages are relatively the same. Give and take a couple. So it would suggest that we are losing points at the free throw line. Who wants to see Lebron and Wade at the FT line more though? The energy is siphoned away when a team is at the line too much.

Another league stat is league averages on assists. In the 80s it was 25 apg+. Since 94 we haven't seen the average above 23 apg. And in the great point guard era we barely cracked 22 for the first time since 99-00.

I know we have to account for pacing and such. But can we honestly say that slower pace and swinging to the open three point shooter is the best way to win? To play basketball? I think teams with a midrange threat will hurt Miami severely. Dirk did. Tony Parker did (when he was healthy).

The way I'm reading the chart, it's reflecting that the first shot everyone wants is at the rim, followed by the corner 3, then the rest of the 3 point line, and lastly anywhere else. I'm not sure there's too much of an actual disagreement here. I don't see anywhere on that chart that says, "Shoot 3's first and the most," or, "Don't attack the rim," or, "Don't post up."

The way I'm reading the chart, it's reflecting that the first shot everyone wants is at the rim, followed by the corner 3, then the rest of the 3 point line, and lastly anywhere else. I'm not sure there's too much of an actual disagreement here. I don't see anywhere on that chart that says, "Shoot 3's first and the most," or, "Don't attack the rim," or, "Don't post up."

Those are handwritten on JOB's copy

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

The way I'm reading the chart, it's reflecting that the first shot everyone wants is at the rim, followed by the corner 3, then the rest of the 3 point line, and lastly anywhere else. I'm not sure there's too much of an actual disagreement here. I don't see anywhere on that chart that says, "Shoot 3's first and the most," or, "Don't attack the rim," or, "Don't post up."

I don't know who in the world Chris Ryan is, but apparently you revert back to "at the rim" and leave out "lastly anywhere else"

Chris Ryan: In today's NBA, every aspect of a player's game is there for us to evaluate. Every mistakenly taken midrange jumper is there on Synergy or can be visualized in shot charts.

How in the world do these guys become basketball experts who people want to read? And before someone say's that maybe they're not talking about all midrange jumpers, this is just a few paragraphs down when discussion John Wall.

Why Some People Don't Love Him:Because he takes long 2s? Because he's on a max deal? Because he spent a lot of time in Las Vegas this summer? Because he poses for Instagram pics with rappers? Because he hasn't played like a no. 1 pick?

Yeah, that's it. Not that he's not a very good shooter, just the simple fact that he actually takes them.

What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca

This year we will see a drastic emphasis on defense. Teams will adopt (many will fail) the Pacer's closeout and protect the paint defense (leaving the midrange open). That is why players like Durant and Parker are so special, and kill us routinely.

Shot blockers will come at a premium and midrange shooters will be sought after. I think Paul George can be one of these players. And same with Lance. I don't want to see Lance working on the 3. I want to see his midrange jumper more dependable.

That is not a new system almost every coach preaches that. Stan Van Gundy's system is based on that(I still LOL at his video's speaking at the SLOAN conference the guy is so anti mid range. He said he was thrilled in ORL that his personal sucked from mid range. I agree with Stan the mid range shot is awful in most circumstances. It is nice to have to keep defenders off balance but I would never encourage it)

Hell I was at Xavier's practice last week and that is there approach on defense. No 3s and no paint(they are a packline team which is a concept many NBA teams use). It isn't a new concept I highly doubt teams change much from what they have done in the past. How the Pacers play defense isnt any thing special Xs and 0s wise. They just have the horses to play defense at a high level and they stay committed.

It is easy to see why inside the paint and outside the 3 point line gives you more points per shot. those shots are only taken by players skilled at taking them, bigs inside and 3 point shooters, for the most part. Throw in automatic layups and drives and the 2-3 "spectacular" dives and finishes per game as well. I'm sure the higher percentage of shots taken fall every where else, so you do get less points per shot. It all comes down to taking good shots, no matter where they are at.

Taking open, in rhythm 2 point shots are good. it is when bigs have to take them too far away or 3 point shooters are driven from the line and have to take them off the dribble. It is also easier to close out on them.

The way I'm reading the chart, it's reflecting that the first shot everyone wants is at the rim, followed by the corner 3, then the rest of the 3 point line, and lastly anywhere else. I'm not sure there's too much of an actual disagreement here. I don't see anywhere on that chart that says, "Shoot 3's first and the most," or, "Don't attack the rim," or, "Don't post up."

Mid range shots are much more likely to draw fouls and offensive rebounds than threes. Maybe not 20 feet, but the 8-12 foot range is very valuable.

Last edited by Kstat; 10-16-2013 at 02:14 AM.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Is there a record anywhere of shooting fouls drawn from various spots on the floor or distances from the rim?

What about offensive rebounds off of misses from various spots or distances?

If there is, it isn't public record.

That said, the greatest player in league history made his living in the 12-15 foot range. It's hard not to notice a shooting guard that isn't a great perimeter shooter averaging 30 points a game on 50% shooting over a 15-year span. The last few years his athletic superiority was gone, and he was still scoring at the same clip because he could dominate a game from the block as easily as he used to dominate it attacking the rim.

During Chicago's championship run, Jordan attempted his most FTs In 1998, at age 34, and I can guarantee he wasn't getting to the rim as often.

Kobe certainly noticed. He remains a top-5 nba player at age 35 because he dominates the mid-range.

People argue that jump shooters don't draw fouls, but after you've been backed down and had two or three turnaround jumpers rained in over your head, he may as well be standing directly underneath the rim. It's almost impossible as a defender not to commit fouls at that point.

Last edited by Kstat; 10-16-2013 at 07:52 AM.

It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

Btw, I don't think using Jordan or Kobe as examples really prove anything. You can very well look at Durant's percentages from midrange and conclude that midrange shots are efficient. Or look at Steph Curry's and wonder why the whole league isn't raining 3's left and right.